G.P.Tronics Pvt Ltd., Kolkata V. ACIT Cir 2(1), Kolakata

ITA 503/KOL/2020

AI Insights

G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited appealed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata, which was passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The primary contention was that the show-cause notice and the subsequent order did not bear a DIN, which is mandatory as per the CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019. The Tribunal referenced the decisions in Tata Medical Centre Trust vs. CIT and Smt. Sunita Agarwal vs. ITO, which supported the view that any communication issued without DIN is void ab initio. The Tribunal, after examining the records, including the show-cause notice and the impugned order, found that neither document contained a DIN, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order was not sustainable and thus quashed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129101 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Tata Medical Centre Trust \\u2013vs.- CIT, Smt. Sunita Agarwal \\u2013vs.- ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Capital expenditure
• Section: 131; 263; 154; 143(3); 143(2); 119

Judgement Text

ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited,........................Appellant C/o. Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata-700007 [PAN: AACCG1313K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Sunil Surana, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing : January 23, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : March 27, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata dated 18.02.2020 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act in assessment year 2015-16. ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 2 2. Originally the assessee has taken only two grounds of appeal, out of which Ground No. 2 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any finding. 3. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has pleaded that the ld. CIT has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and thereby setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that after the Circular No. 19 of 2019 issued by the CBDT, every correspondence or show-cause notice is mandatorily required to mention Document Identification Number (DIN) and if no DIN is generated, then such a show-cause notice is to be construed as without jurisdiction. He further submitted that this aspect has been elaborately considered by the Tribunal in the case of Tata Medical Centre Trust –vs.- CIT reported in [2022] 140 taxmann.com 431 (Kolkata Trib.). In this judgment, ITAT, Kolkata has considered the scope of Circular dated 14.08.2019 and thereafter held that if a show-cause notice is being issued without DIN, then it is to be considered void ab initio. Similarly the Tribunal has observed that if the impugned order does not bear DIN, then it is not sustainable. The Tribunal has reproduced copy of the show-cause notice in its order as well as copy of the ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 3 impugned order passed under section 263 in the case of Tata Medical Centre Trust. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that this order of the Tata Medical Centre Trust has been further followed in the case of Smt. Sunita Agarwal –vs.- ITO rendered in ITA No. 432/KOL/2020. The Tribunal in this case has reproduced the finding of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Medical Centre Trust. On the strength of these two judgments, he drew our attention towards copy of the show-cause notice available on the record. Similarly he made reference to the Cause Title of the impugned order passed under section 263 and submitted that both these documents do not bear DIN, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 6. The ld. CIT(DR) was unable to controvert this factual submission. 7. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the copy of show-cause notice dated 03.01.2020 reveals that it does not bear DIN. Similarly the impugned order does not bear DIN. Therefore, in view of two decisions of ITAT, Kolkata referred above, the impugned order is not sustainable and it is quashed. However, for the purpose of completeness of the finding and demonstrating the reasoning, we deem it appropriate to take note of the ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 4 following finding from ITA No. 432/KOL/2020 dated 22.11.2022, which reads as under:- “5. We have considered the rival submission. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Medical Centre Trust vs. CIT (supra). The relevant part of the order of the Tribunal for the sake of ready reference is reproduced as under: “11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties. Before adverting on the issue in hand, the CBDT Circle No. 19/2009 dated 14.08.2019, copy of which is placed in the paper book pages 68-69, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Circular No. 19/2019 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, dated the 14th August, 2019 Subject: Generation/Allotment/Quoting of Document Identification Number in Notice/Order/Summons/letter/correspondence issued by the Income-tax Department -reg. With the launch of various e-governance initiatives, Income-tax Department is moving toward total computerization of its work. This has led to a significant improvement in delivery of services and has also brought greater transparency in the functioning of the tax- administration. Presently, almost all notices and orders are being generated electronically on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) platform. However, it has been brought to the notice of the Central Board or Direct Taxes (the Board) that there have been some instances in which the notice, order, summons, letter and any correspondence (hereinafter referred to as "communication") were found to have been issued manually, without maintaining a proper audit trail of such communication. 2. In order to prevent such instances and to maintain proper audit trail of all communication, the Board in exercise of power under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act"), has decided that no communication shall be issued by any income- tax authority relating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 5 otherwise, exemptions, enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to the assessee or any other person, on or after the I st day of October, 2019 unless a computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body or such communication. 3. In exceptional circumstances such as, - (i) when there are technical difficulties in generating/allotting/quoting the DIN and issuance or communication electronically; or (ii) when communication regarding enquiry, verification etc. is required to be issued by an income-tax authority, who is outside the office, for discharging his official duties; or (iii) when due to delay in PAN migration PAN is lying with non- jurisdictional Assessing Officer; or (iv) when PAN or assessee is not available and where a proceeding under the Act (other than verification under section 131 or section 133 of the Act) is sought to be initiated; or (v) When the functionality to issue communication is not available in the system, the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the file and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General of income- tax. In cases where manual communication is required to be issued due to delay in PAN migration, the proposal seeking approval for issuance of manual communication shall include the reason for delay in PAN migration. The communication issued under aforesaid circumstances shall state the fact that the communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief Commissioner/ Director General or Income-Tax for issue of manual communication in the following format- “ .. This communication issues manually without a DIN on account of reason/ reasons given in para 3(i)/ 3(ii)/ 3(iii)/ 3(iv)/ 3(v) of the CBDT Circular No ...dated (strike off those which are not applicable) and with the approval of the Chief Commissioner I Director General of Income Tax vide number .... dated " 4. Any communication which is not in conformity with Para-2 and Para-3 above, shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued. ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 6 5. The communication issued manually in the three situations specified in para 3- (i), (ii) or (iii) above shall have to be regularised within 15 working days of its issuance, by - (i) uploading the manual communication on the System. (ii) compulsorily generating the DIN on the System; (iii) communicating the DIN so generated to the assessee/ any other person as per electronically generated pro- forma available on the System. 6. An intimation of issuance of manual communication for the reasons mentioned in para 3(v) shall be sent to the Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) vuithin seven days from the date of its issuance. 7. Further, in all pending assessment proceedings, where notices were issued manually, prior to issuance of this Circular, the income-tax authorities shall identify such cases and shall upload the notices in these cases on the Systems by 31 th October, 2019. 8. Hindi version to follow. Sarita Kumari Director (ITA.II), CBDT (F. No. 225/95/2019-ITA.II) 12. From the perusal of above circular, we note that CBDT came out with this circular to mitigate the issues/ instances where certain notices, orders, summons, letters and other correspondences which have been issued manually do not have proper audit trail of their communication despite various e- govemance initiatives and computerization of its work. Therefore, in order to prevent such instances and to maintain proper audit trail of all the communications, CBDT directed that no communication shall be issued by any Income-tax authority relating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions, enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to the assessee or any other person, on or after the 01.10.2019 unless a computer generated DIN has been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of such communication. We note that para 3 of the said circular provides for certain exceptional circumstances when the communication is issued manually, in which case such manually issued communications should contain the fact that the said communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the Chief ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 7 Commissioner/Director General of Income-tax for issue of said manual communication in the prescribed format. Thus, it is observed from the said circular that all the communications mentioned therein have to be either generated and issued electronically with DIN or in certain exceptional circumstances the communication may he issued manually without DIN, fact of which along with its written approval has to be stated in the body of the said communication, failing which, para 4 of the said circular states that such communication shall be treated as ‘invalid’ and shall be deemed to have never been issued’. 12.1. On a specific query by the bench to the Ld. CIT, DR to point out if there was any exceptional circumstance which led to the manual issue of the order u/s. 263 of the Act, he pointed out that the only possibility of exceptional circumstance as mentioned in the CBDT Circular, could be as listed in para 3(i) which mentioned that “when there are technical difficulties in generating / allotting/ quoting the DIN and issuance of communication electronically”. For this he requested for verification of the case records. 12.2. On this aspect, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is undisputed and verifiable fact that the impugned order is not an electronic communication but a manual order as is evident from the perusal of the order itself. It is an order which has been passed manually and page 9 of the said order does not even bare a full and proper signature of the Ld. CIT(E), Kolkata. Page 10 of the said order bears the signature of TRO(E), Kolkata, dated 31.03.2021, and therefore, the exception pointed out by the Ld. CIT, DR does not apply in the present case since it is relevant only to a communication which is issued electronically. He further pointed out that within this para 3 of the CBDT Circular, it is mentioned that when the communication is issued manually, such communication in its body must state the fact that the said communication is issued manually without a DIN and the date of obtaining of the written approval of the prescribed authority for issue of manual communication in the prescribed format has to be stated therein. In the present case, no such fact of issuing the present order manually without a DIN by obtaining an approval from prescribed authority in the prescribed format is mentioned/ quoted in the body of the impugned order and, therefore, even if the case records are verified, it will not serve any purpose since the impugned order itself does not contain any such factual notation as contemplated in para 3 of the CBDT circular. 12.3. In order to demonstrate how a communication issued electronically containing a DIN would look like, the Ld. Counsel referred to one such notice u/s. 154 dated 08.10.2020 issued on the assessee, placed at paper book page 53, scanned copy of which is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference: ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 8 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1). EXEMPT. KOLKATA To. TATA MEDICAL CENTRE TRUST 1 BISHOP LEFROY ROAD.LEFROY ROAD KOLKATA KOLKATA 700020.West Bengal Ir.dia PAN; Assessment Year: Dated: DIN & Notice No : AABTT2222Q 2016-17 08/10/2020 ITBA/COM/F/17/202Q-21/1028167761(1) Sir/Madam/ M/s, Sub.: Proceedings under section 154 - Notice The assesssment/refund order under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2016-17 requires to be amended as there is a mistake apparent form the record within the meaning of section 154/155 of me Income Tax Act, 1961. The rectification of the mistakes, as per particular given below, will have the effect of enhancing the assessment/reducing the refund/ increasing your liability. If you wish to be heard, you are requested to file your submission online or or before 09.10.2020 at 11:30 a.m. Alternatively you may send a written reply so as to read me on or before the date mentioned above. Particulars of mistake proposed to be rectified 1. On verification of records, it is revealed t4hat the assessee had earned interest income amounting to Rs.91.37 lacs on corpus funds and Rs.27.3 lacs on ‘other earmarked funds’. It is observed that though interest received under Rs.91.37 lacs had been added back to the income side as per I&F account in the assessment order. Interest income received or earmarked fund (Rs.21.31 lacs) has not been taken as income. The same needs to be treated as part of income. 2. An amount of Rs.5,18,29,615 has been deducted towards apportion from patient care fund from total income as per I&F A/c while computing taxable income for the AY 2015-16. It reveals that you had actually added the same amount as receipt under the hand revenue from operation in the I&F account. The amount has been spent towards normal course of activities of the assessee during the year. Thus deduction of Rs.5,18,29,615/- as apportion from patient care fund in the ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 9 I&F A/c from the income of the assessee without corresponding deduction in the expenditure side has actually resulted in irregular increase in deficit for the AY 2016-17 by the same amount 12.4. From this notice, Ld. Counsel pointed out that on the top left comer it bears a Bar Code. Further, in the box on the top of right hand side it bears a DIN and Notice No. Also, in the body of the notice, it mentions about the fact that document is digitally signed. Further, in the left bottom of the said notice, there is a legend put with an asterisk (*) mark which says ‘DIN’. 12.5. In contrast to this, attention of the bench was invited, both to the show cause notice issued pursuant to revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act dated 23.03.2021 placed at pages 55 to 57 of the paper book, which was issued manually and does not bear any reference to DIN in terms of CBDT circular so also the impugned order passed u/s. 263 which is also issued manually and does not bear any reference to DIN as required by the CBDT circular. The first page and the last two pages of the impugned order are reproduced hereunder for reference, in the context of quoting DIN as contemplated by CBDT circular: OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA 6™ FLOOR, I OB, MIDDLETON ROW, KOLKATA- 700071 Ph: [phone], FAX[phone]. Name of assessee : Tata Medical Centre Trust 6. Whether Resident/Resident but not ordinarily resident/non-resident: Resident Address : 1, Bishop Lefroy Road, Kolkata-700020 7. Method of accounting : Mercantile 3. PAN/GIR No. AABTT2222Q 8. Previous year : 2015-16 4. Status : Trust (a)If HUF, is higher rate of tax applicable? (b)If company, whether (i)Domestic/Others (ii)Public substantially interested/ Public not substantially interested (iii)Industrial/Non-Industrial (iv)Section 108/other than Sec. 108 9. Date(s) of hearing : As per records 5. Assessment Year : 2016-17 10. Date of order : 31.03.2021 ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 The facts of the case are that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2016-17 was completed on 04.12.2018, determining total income at Rs. Nil/-. On further verification of assessment records, it has been found that the following exemptions were allowed by the Assessing Officer beyond the permissible scope as per Income Tax Act: (i) In the instant case, the assessee claimed 'Provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs.37.40 lakh under the head Other expenses as application of fund. As per provision of the Act, mere provision would not be allowable as a deduction and the ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 10 actual writing off of the debt was a necessary pre-condition. Therefore, only the actual expenditures made during the year can be treated as application. As such, the said amount of Rs.37.40 lakh is required to be added back to the income of the assessee. (ii) Scrutiny of the assessment order revealed that, an amount of Rs.5,18.29.615 has been deducted towards Apportion from patient care fund (SL. 461) of the table at paragraph 4 of the order from Total income as per I&E A/c', while computing taxable income of the assessee for the AY 2016-17. Further scrutiny revealed that the assessee had actually added the said amount as receipt" under the head. (iii) In view of the above, the Assessing Officer has erred in allowing capital expenditure Rs. 4989.53 lakhs towards addition to fixed assets and Rs. 447.4 lakhs towards WIP which resulted in loss of revenue and therefore, is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Assessing Officer is hereby directed to compute income with allowing capital expenditure and WIP. (iv) The assessee Trust created several Trust and Corpus Fund as well as Earmarked Funds in which contributions from donors with direction for utilization for specific purposes are accumulated for future utilization in accordance to the direction of donors. These receipts are not taken to the income since considered as exempt u/s, 11(1 )(d) being capital receipt in nature. Interest accrued/ earned on such fund being revenue in nature is considered as Income from Other Sources. While computing income, the assessee Trust separately included interest of Rs. 91.37 lakhs in computation of income recognising the same as revenue recceipt, but interest earned on other earmarked funds to the tune of Rs. 27.31 lakhs was not included in income as well as in computation of income separately. During the course of proceedings u/s. 263, it has been contended that apportionment of the interest amount to the I/E Accounts would not change the colour of the receipt. The assessee has also relied upon several court decision to establish that the interesl accrued on corpus fund would be corpus in nature. However, the treatment towards interest on corpus fund being revenue in nature in accepted accounting norms, which has been recognized by the assessee itself in other part. The Assessing Officer also has not noticed the same in assessment erroneously and, therefore, the revenue interest income remained outside the ambit for fulfillment of conditions mentioned in section 11(1) for compulsory application of income @ 85% and also outside the ambit of taxation. As such, the Assessing Officer is directed to compute income taking Rs. 27.31 lakhs as income. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessment Order passed by the A.O. is therefore erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The A.O. is directed to give effect to the order as per the provision of the Act, and compute income on the basis of issue wise discussions above. Ordered accordingly, Sd/- [Pankaj Kumar] Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata M. No. CIT(E)/Kol/263/2020-21/403-405 dated 31.03.2021 Copy forwarded to: 9. Addl.CIT (Exemptions), Range-1, Kolkata 10. AC/DC Circle-l(l), Kolkata. 11. Assessee. Sd/- ( B. K. Shrivastava ) TRO (Exemptions), Kolkata ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 11 13.From the above submissions and arguments, we note that it is an undisputed fact that the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act has been issued manually which does not bear the signature of the authority passing the order. Further, from the perusal of the entire order, in its body, there is no reference to the fact of this order issued manually without a DIN for which the written approval of Chief Commissioner/Director General of Income-tax was required to be obtained in the prescribed format in terms of the CBDT circular. We also note that in terms of para 4 of the CBDT circular, such a lapse renders this impugned order as invalid and deemed to have never been issued. 13.1. It is also important to note about the binding nature of CBDT circular on the Income-tax Authorities for which gainful guidance is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC) wherein it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee. 13.2.In the case of UCO Bank [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the legal status of such circulars, observed thus (page 896): "Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board thus has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a) , however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forgo the advantage when required to wield it in a manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law or in other permissible manners as laid down in section 119. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and in public interest. It is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Hard cases which can be properly categorized as belonging to a class, can thus be given the benefit of relaxation of law by issuing circulars binding on the taxing authorities." 13.3. In the matter of Nay ana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP), the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the guidelines issued by the Board in exercise of powers in terms of section 119 of the Act ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 12 relaxing the rigours of law are binding on all the officers responsible for implementation of the Act and, therefore, bound to follow and observe any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. 13.4. In the decision of DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 491 (CG,) it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in para 16 that the administrative Instruction No. 9/2004 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is binding on administrative officer in view of the statutory provision contained in section 143(2), which provides for limitation of 12 months for issuance of notice under section 143(2). While giving its finding, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and Nayana P. Dedhia (supra). 13.5. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta in the case of Amal Kumar Ghosh [2014] 361 ITR 458 (Cal) dealt with the issue relating to CBDT circular which according to the Department cannot defeat the provisions of law. While giving its observations and finding on the issue, the Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Sunita Finlease Ltd (supra), which are as under: 7.We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Advocates. Even assuming that the intention of CBDT was to restrict the time for selection of the cases for scrutiny within a period of three months, it cannot be said that the selection in this case was made within the aforesaid period. Admittedly, the return was filed on 29th October, 2004 and the case was selected for scrutiny on 6th July, 2005. It may be pointed out that Mrs. Gutgutia was, in fact, reiterating the views taken by the learned Tribunal which we also quoted above. By any process of reasoning, it was not open for the learned Tribunal to come to a finding that the department acted within the four comers of Circulars No. 9 and 10 issued by CBDT. The circulars were evidently violated. The circulars are binding upon the department under section 119 of the I.T. Act. 8.Mrs. Gutgutia, learned Advocate submitted that the circulars are not meant for the purpose of permitting the unscrupulous assessees from evading tax. Even assuming, that to be so, it cannot be said that the department, which is State, can be permitted to selectively apply the standards set by themselves for their own conduct. If this type of deviation is permitted, the conseguences will be that floodgate of corruption will be opened which it is not desirable to encourage. When the department has set down a ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 13 standard for itself, the department is bound by that standard and cannot act with discrimination. In case, it does that, the act of the department is bound to be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution. In the facts of the case, it is not necessary for us to decide whether the intention of CBDT was to restrict the period of issuance of notice from the date of filing the return laid down under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. [emphasis supplied by us by underline] 14.Considering the facts on record, perusal of the impugned order, submissions made by the Ld. Counsel and the department, CBDT circular and the judicial precedents including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta, we are inclined to adjudicate on the additional ground in favour of the assessee by holding that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is invalid and deemed to have never been issued as it fails to mention DIN in its body by adhering to the CBDT circular no. 19 of 2019. Accordingly, additional ground taken by the assessee is allowed. Having so held on the legal issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground, the grounds relating to the merits of the case requires no adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of above observations and findings.” 8. As observed earlier, there is no disparity on facts. The ld. Commissioner did not generate DIN either in the notice or in the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 th March, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 27 th day of March, 2023 ITA No. 503/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited 14 Copies to :(1) G.P. Tronics Pvt. Limited, C/o. Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata-700007 (2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 (3) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax--1, Kolkata; (4) Commissioner of Income Tax- , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.